*headdesk* Obama is not a goddamn socialist, you morons. Social inequality is not a left or right issue. Everyone suffers from income inequality because the economy is stagnant. If you bothered to pull your heads out of your asses and stop making this a political issue, you'd see that we need to do something now so we can all benefit.

"Obama and de Blasio exemplify Schoeck's concern. Both of them are consumed with tapping into a debased appetite for envy, driving a wedge between the classes. "

I had to stop reading there. The wedge between the classes is a real thing, driven by the fact that the rich are SO incredibly rich, and seem to delight in torturing the poor, going so far as to act as if a minimum wage increase will cripple companies with record profits... and CEOs that make hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

somedude210:*headdesk* Obama is not a goddamn socialist, you morons. Social inequality is not a left or right issue. Everyone suffers from income inequality because the economy is stagnant. If you bothered to pull your heads out of your asses and stop making this a political issue, you'd see that we need to do something now so we can all benefit.

Yeah, even incredibly rich people are worried about it. The people that aren't worried are people like the Kochs who need social validation that the billions they inherited is money they deserve. They need to know they're that much better.

serpent_sky:"Obama and de Blasio exemplify Schoeck's concern. Both of them are consumed with tapping into a debased appetite for envy, driving a wedge between the classes. "

I had to stop reading there. The wedge between the classes is a real thing, driven by the fact that the rich are SO incredibly rich, and seem to delight in torturing the poor, going so far as to act as if a minimum wage increase will cripple companies with record profits... and CEOs that make hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

I always get a kick out of the right getting upset at perceived class warfare from the left, right before they deride poor people of being Cadillac Queens.

Mrtraveler01:serpent_sky: "Obama and de Blasio exemplify Schoeck's concern. Both of them are consumed with tapping into a debased appetite for envy, driving a wedge between the classes. "

I had to stop reading there. The wedge between the classes is a real thing, driven by the fact that the rich are SO incredibly rich, and seem to delight in torturing the poor, going so far as to act as if a minimum wage increase will cripple companies with record profits... and CEOs that make hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

I always get a kick out of the right getting upset at perceived class warfare from the left, right before they deride poor people of being Cadillac Queens.

This article was written for Bill Donohue and Bill Donohue only. He's doing his best to rationalize his belief in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and its new leader with his beliefs in the true righteousness of free market economics.

It has zero to do with morality. Even the coldest-hearted utilitarian could tell you that large-scale wealth inequality is a common catalyst for political and social instability, and that's objectively bad for society.

I imagine the Catholic League's grudging acceptance of the Pope's position is based not on the fact that he's the Pope, but that he is largely powerless to affect change, so there's no harm. Obama and DeBlasio, on the other hand, are actually in positions to act on their belief, and we can't have that.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

It has zero to do with morality. Even the coldest-hearted utilitarian could tell you that large-scale wealth inequality is a common catalyst for political and social instability, and that's objectively bad for society.

People will support the Pope saying it, because he is encouraging morality. They won't support attempts to actually legislate morality, because they doubt that morality has much to do with a politician's motives. I'm not saying I agree with that course, but I recognize the reality of it. The bumper sticker says "can't". It's not wrong.

jigger:Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

When Pope Francis speaks about our "throwaway" abortion culture, or comments on marriage as a union between a man and a woman, he wins no points from those on the left.

Yeah, dumbass, anyone who thinks that it is possible to make EVERYONE happy is a delusional moron. No, the Left isn't going to sing this Pope's praises on everything, THAT is how the real world farking functions.

Now, is there any more derp contained with... Ohhh, look:

What is driving Obama and de Blasio is envy;

You guys are the ones who keep telling us how Obama can't represent us because he's too rich. Pick one. Is he too rich, or is he "jealous"? Oh, I'm sorry, he's "envious". Either way, you've raised 'stupid' to new levels, you should be proud.

...what is driving the Pope is justice.

OK, so NOW we're getting somewhere. Speaking out against income inequality is speaking out against injustice. Glad you could join the party.

ikanreed:jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

somedude210:*headdesk* Obama is not a goddamn socialist, you morons. Social inequality is not a left or right issue. Everyone suffers from income inequality because the economy is stagnant. If you bothered to pull your heads out of your asses and stop making this a political issue, you'd see that we need to do something now so we can all benefit.

If social inequality isn't a left issue then what does left even mean?

jigger:ikanreed: jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

I said that once in a thread and someone (I don't remember who) went off on a multi-post tirade about how laws are morals by definition and that there could never ever, EVER be a law that wasn't moral.

Ned Stark:somedude210: *headdesk* Obama is not a goddamn socialist, you morons. Social inequality is not a left or right issue. Everyone suffers from income inequality because the economy is stagnant. If you bothered to pull your heads out of your asses and stop making this a political issue, you'd see that we need to do something now so we can all benefit.

If social inequality isn't a left issue then what does left even mean?

"Left" is some scary boogeyman Bill Buckley ran with. "Left" rather than "sensible" happens to equate with Commies and dictators. You cannot change society because you will end up with a Mugabe.

ikanreed:jigger: ikanreed: jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

If you can afford to not do this, how rich are you?

Seriously, do you think going shopping every day is cheaper?

Losing food to spoilage?

It's not even remotely relative.

200 years ago the richest people in the world shiat in a hole in the ground. Today the poorest americans have indoor plumbing and toilet paper. 200 years from now, people like you will be crowing about "the poor" even though they have everything they'll ever need and more.

jigger:ikanreed: jigger: ikanreed: jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

If you can afford to not do this, how rich are you?

Seriously, do you think going shopping every day is cheaper?

Losing food to spoilage?

It's not even remotely relative.

200 years ago the richest people in the world shiat in a hole in the ground. Today the poorest americans have indoor plumbing and toilet paper. 200 years from now, people like you will be crowing about "the poor" even though they have everything they'll ever need and more.

It has zero to do with morality. Even the coldest-hearted utilitarian could tell you that large-scale wealth inequality is a common catalyst for political and social instability, and that's objectively bad for society.

People will support the Pope saying it, because he is encouraging morality. They won't support attempts to actually legislate morality, because they doubt that morality has much to do with a politician's motives. I'm not saying I agree with that course, but I recognize the reality of it. The bumper sticker says "can't". It's not wrong.

So yeah, it was a great point, you just missed what it was.

Why are a politician's motives in any way relevant? They should be judged on the legislation they write/sponsor/enact, their policy positions, and their public behavior. Legislators can and do legislate morality on a regular basis ("blue" alcohol laws, vice taxes, sodomy laws, etc.). Are you trying to say that you can't force real morality through legislation?

jigger:ikanreed: jigger: ikanreed: jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

If you can afford to not do this, how rich are you?

Seriously, do you think going shopping every day is cheaper?

Losing food to spoilage?

It's not even remotely relative.

200 years ago the richest people in the world shiat in a hole in the ground. Today the poorest americans have indoor plumbing and toilet paper. 200 years from now, people like you will be crowing about "the poor" even though they have everything they'll ever need and more.

Which is why poor people nowadays don't suffer from anything that used to afflict the poor, like homelessness, hunger or disease! The society we've built truly is a technological utopia.

jigger:ikanreed: jigger: ikanreed: jigger: Rapmaster2000: I heard that a lot of these poors have refrigerators.

I guess in the next few centuries people will claim the poor aren't really poor because they have replicators and holodecks. But they're really poor, you see, because they don't have a ships with warp drive.

Keeping food rather than letting it spoil: only for the rich.

If you can afford to do this, how poor are you? It's all relative, which was my point.

If you can afford to not do this, how rich are you?

Seriously, do you think going shopping every day is cheaper?

Losing food to spoilage?

It's not even remotely relative.

200 years ago the richest people in the world shiat in a hole in the ground. Today the poorest americans have indoor plumbing and toilet paper. 200 years from now, people like you will be crowing about "the poor" even though they have everything they'll ever need and more.

So in other words, no one's poor because they have more than the skin on their back?

Ned Stark:If social inequality isn't a left issue then what does left even mean?

Such large social inequalities are everyone's issue. When people can't afford housing or food, they aren't going to stay in their own neighborhoods. They're going to go after the people who have big, warm houses and all the food they could ever want. It is in everyone's interest to have a solid middle class. I grasp we can't all be exactly the same, but the shrinking middle class in this country is a danger for all. For those who will suffer the ills of extreme poverty, and for the rich, who will be affected as well. Nobody wins.

And the GOP's seeming full-on assault on the poor, as standard policy (not extending unemployment, cutting SNAP benefits, so on and so forth) is not only stupid, but it's reckless.

You know the old saying, "the world needs ditch diggers, too"? It applies here. We need our minimum wage workforce or everything grinds to a halt. EVERYTHING. But keep arguing against paying these people better. I'm not saying the guy who stocks shelves at A&P should make as much money as my doctor, but he works hard and should be able to afford the basics on the salary from that one (essential for us all) job.

whidbey:Ned Stark: somedude210: *headdesk* Obama is not a goddamn socialist, you morons. Social inequality is not a left or right issue. Everyone suffers from income inequality because the economy is stagnant. If you bothered to pull your heads out of your asses and stop making this a political issue, you'd see that we need to do something now so we can all benefit.

If social inequality isn't a left issue then what does left even mean?

"Left" is some scary boogeyman Bill Buckley ran with. "Left" rather than "sensible" happens to equate with Commies and dictators. You cannot change society because you will end up with a Mugabe.

amirite?

The left/right language we use in politics is a lot older than Buckley...

The rest of you post I can't make heads or tails of, so I couldn't say if you're right.